I'm a native English speaker. I studied and learned Russian and German in college/on my own. I grew up down south where French is taught in elementary schools, then I later learned Spanish working with Mexicans. My siblings each learned Estonian, German, Portugese and Japanese, respectively. That makes me better than you. And you are a durok.

It's still not worth it. That's ridiculous that someone would have to pay anywhere close to 50% taxes for those services. In the US I'm in the 25% Federal income tax bracket and my private health insurance plan and other benefits--including the employer subsidy would still only amount to about 30% of my my gross income. Adjusting for tax credits other deductions and my total tax burden ends up being probably closer to 18-20% anyway. I'll take quality of life + money any day.

I had a similar experience in a math class. The teacher introduced the concept of imaginary numbers. When I learned that imaginary numbers were just a man-made construct and do not really exist I angrily stormed out of the classroom and forsook science.

I have since repented and am currently employed as an electrical engineer. I am now quite comfortable with the concept of imaginary numbers. I'm glad I gave math a second try.

Except they are correct about destroying the economy. 70% of energy in the US is generated from fossil fuels. If scientists say we have only 30 years or so to become independent of oil/fossil fuels--I haven't been keeping track of the latest panic projections, but I remember some of them were about as ridiculous--then that certainly would be "death to America." Also don't conflate the three issues of preventing global warming, becoming independent of foreign energy imports and exhausting fossil fuel reserves.

As far as being liberators of Iraq. It depends on who you ask. I've met many Iraqi refugees that are very happy that Saddam was overthrown. There are a large number of Iranians who wish we would do the same there. Even many of the Iraqis causing trouble are happy that we came in because it upset the balance of power and gave them opportunities. I can't speak for the majority of Iraqis and I don't know that an accurate survey could be conducted. It depends on who you ask. If you have any military members in your family, ask them about their experiences if they've toured in Iraq, you will get a completely different perspective than what you hear reported in the news.

That's not necessarily work avoidance. When I get sick it is usually close to the weekend, either because I get behind on my sleep during the week and my immune system is dead by Friday, or I get no sleep on the weekend trying to fit in as many fun things as I can, usually physically exhausting myself---again increasing the chances of getting sick. That, in fact, happened just last weekend.

But it really stifles the creativity of the player by restricting actions to a very specific set of pre-programmed actions. You *must* farm for Vespene gas. you *must* collect crystals. There is little room for true creativity and adventuring. Today's FPS games are actually getting better at allowing this kind of freedom.

Yeah kind of like Chess. Who came up with that lousy game anyway? In particular pawns! Whose brilliant idea was it that the stupid little thing can only (under most circumstances) move one space foward at a time! Why can't we just have a polygynous king with 8 queens on the front row? It's no wonder that game was such a flop--no opportunity for creative expression or adventure of any kind!

I personally would much rather play a game with books full of rules on par with the IRS tax code and encyclopedias full of make-believe monsters and other elements that govern how my make-believe world will be run.

If the transferrin receptor is the target, how does this make it "cancer-specific"? Is this an abnormal receptor that would not be present in other cells? Or does this approach rely on the target selectively binding to the cancer cells because of the higher concentraiton of these receptors? If that's the case wouldn't we expect to see "collateral" damage (other cells)?

So they say this has the ability to silence genes. Yet the article says the treatment accomplished its purpose of splicing mRNA. Splicing mRNA!=gene silencing. This would mean this is a dose-dependent, reversible effect and not a permanent treatment. That makes it sound like someone would have to continually be on the drugs and when they stopped, then the effect would disappear and everything would return to pre-treatment conditions. During that time what's to stop the cancer from mutating and losing or altering those specific receptors.

I may have to actually read the primary literature, the summary article did a poor job of explaining any of this.

This would come with the explicit expectation that these governments spend the money wisely, and steps are taken so that as little money as possible is wasted by corruption.

That is the problem plaguing the Bretton Woods Institutions and most other NGO international aid organizations since their inception. Certainly not a trivial problem. If you've got a solution then you'd immediately be appointed King of the World and given a Nobel prize to boot.

That bit about the Ethiopians is interesting, never heard that but can't say it's surprising!